Forum:Brickipedia policy
This page is for proposing new site-wide policies and subsequent discussions. Before making a proposal, please take a look at the existing policies first (Category:Brickipedia policy). Suggestions for additions to the Manual of Style should be made here. = New proposals = Image policy At Forum:File Names it was proposed to make more descriptive names for uploaded images mandatory. In addition to this, we should also codify the other decisions we made about images. (Forum:Confidential Images etc.) ;The following points should be discussed * When new images are uploaded they should be given unambigious, descriptive names, i.e. (Set No.)-(Photo for this set number) or (set no. - name of the set) etc. * New images should be put in an appropriate category for easier organization. (Propose a category scheme for this in the comments section) * It is forbidden to upload any images that are labelled as "confidential". Comments * I like this policy, and I agree, all new images should be in the new format, then the patrollers and admins can work thier way through them. I dont think any of the existing bot frameworks I have avalible are smart enough to do this task, although a bot coded in PHP, may be able to do so. I'll keep my eyes open for something. --Lcawte 09:12, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ** Just checked, its possible but it takes alot of manual work. I would have to find image pairs, aka Origanal and new image name... a pain. --Lcawte 10:23, February 21, 2010 (UTC) *** Ajr had the two bots start changing set images from to ... So should we go with that? --Lcawte 11:00, February 21, 2010 (UTC) **** It's a good idea. [[User:Construction Worker|'Construction']][[special:contributions/Construction Worker|''' Worker ]][[User talk:Construction Worker|'''Do you need help?]] 11:19, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ***** I totally support this idea, though not sure what we could do. I just upload them as ex. 10198-1.jpg. I think that would be best, so that confusion doesn't arouse. -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'I PRESS SMASH BUTTON!']] 13:32, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ******Yes! It sounds great!--[[User:Agent Chase|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Chase|'Chase: ']] 16:53, February 21, 2010 (UTC) *******It all sounds good to me. We should probably decide officially on whether the images that the Toy Fair images are allowed, even though the box art has the confidential logo behind it. Unofficially, we've allowed the Toy Fair images (because it's a public event, so it's hardly "confidential" anymore, and the model's right in front of the boxes anyway. And with the files names, set number-photo number sounds good to me, the name could be too long. 01:55, February 22, 2010 (UTC) {undent} I was thinking, maybe we should go with File:--boxart.jpg or whatever, for the sets that have other sets using the same number? --Lcawte 15:28, February 22, 2010 (UTC) :I like this suggestion too, but what about uploading images with a box in the background, that carries that watermark? Like various pictures of Toy Fairs, where the Boxes are labelled with a watermark. 15:39, February 22, 2010 (UTC) ::In addition to the new image categories, we could also have all of the file names have, say, -.png? In the case of parts .png? I think that we should also /try/ to have all of the images in .png format, it just makes it easier and there are less compatability issues! Ajraddatz Talk 15:46, February 22, 2010 (UTC) :::This was something I was going so start working on, as PNG's do tend to keep their quality better. But PNG shouldnt be one huge rush, and should probally done via a editing program... --Lcawte 20:13, February 23, 2010 (UTC) ::::Having -.png would make them a lot longer. Not sure whether this is a problem or not. But should it be the whole name? 18:59, February 25, 2010 (UTC) :::::Shouldn't do.. --Lcawte 09:50, February 27, 2010 (UTC) Notability Brickipedia's primary subject is the documentation of LEGO's official sets and themes as well as related information about history, building styles, the company itself or related events. Thus, unoffial sets, MOCs, custom minifigures or produts from other LEGO-compatible toy manufacturers don't belong here. They have their place at the LEGO Custom Wiki. * Maybe add something about not having MLN pages if this is voted through too? 08:12, September 8, 2009 (UTC) **I would like to suggest (write place here?) that all vehicles/things that appear in one set and have no real notability otherwise (e.g. not in video games) should be added to its own little part of the set article. Kingcjc 15:39, January 14, 2010 (UTC) Comments? -- 10:44, January 15, 2010 (UTC) * Sorry- I only just found this- looks good to me. The only thing I'm worried about is the videogame-only minfiigures with notability- how are we going to choose whether it's notable or not? Deletion requests? 04:33, January 22, 2010 (UTC) * By videogame minifigures, do you mean the ones in the recent games (star wars, idny, batman) that are playable or contribute a lot to the story (ie appears in lots of cutscreens or just unplayable) deserve an article, but not ones that appear in the background of a cutscene for 2 seconds? Kingcjc 21:04, January 22, 2010 (UTC) ** Yeah, something like that. Maybe we should put up a vote in order to specify this in greater detail. -- 09:11, January 23, 2010 (UTC) *** I dont suppose we could point people to wikis to do with the stuff thats not allowed here, like MOC's can go to Custom Lego Wiki.. Then if we were to ignore MLN pages, we could point them over there as well, --Lcawte 09:05, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::We are currently directing all of the MLN pages to MLN Wiki, except for the basics like My LEGO Network. We should have an article on MoCs here as well, which contains a link to the customs wiki. Ajraddatz Talk 15:42, February 22, 2010 (UTC) = Additions to existing policies = 05:22, October 30, 2009 (UTC) * Just a small point here , Star Wars sets are sent for approval by Lego. It is highly unlikely that the Lego Group did not have the characters names. I think you should use the names Lego have given the characters and note the other names or real names if you like on the particular pages. Ohh and regarding getting the RD-Q5 name wrong , this was corrected on the second production run of set 6211 Imperial Star Destroyer. Gladiatoring 01:20, February 9, 2010 (UTC) * I kind of like 2, but 4 would also work. 04:52, November 4, 2009 (UTC) ** I would have to agree- I'm not a big fan of 1 or 3 00:29, November 6, 2009 (UTC) * Any other comments, suggestions, votes, etc? 03:25, December 7, 2009 (UTC) *** Uuuum, I don't... 05:21, December 10, 2009 (UTC) * I dont really see the pages them selves as much of a problem, Image naming is a bit outta hand, if we put an image naming policy in place, I or my bot wouldnt mind doing it, I'll probally end up doing it... -- 16:30, December 13, 2009 (UTC) * If there are no other comments/votes by tomorrow, option 2 will go through as the approved naming policy, with option 4 being able to be used in particular cases. 22:26, February 8, 2010 (UTC) :Since we are a LEGO wiki, we should use the official LEGO names. After all, these names are just designations for the respective minifigures and not the characters. -- 06:04, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :2/4 Kingcjc 16:55, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :It's looking like the current votes are at: :* Option #1: 0 :* Option #2: 3 :* Option #3: 2 :* Option #4: 3 :Are there any more comments/votes or should voting be closed soon? 00:07, February 26, 2010 (UTC) ::Yep. Definitely not 1. I don't like 3 either. My fave is 2. [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 12:33, February 27, 2010 (UTC) * Final vote count: Option #1: 0 Option #2: 4 Option #3: 2 Option #4: 3 }} = Past proposals = Vote Make the above text part of Brickipedia's policy? ;Support * - 12:33, December 8, 2009 (UTC) * -Gladiatoring 13:02, December 8, 2009 (UTC) * Ajraddatz Talk 14:35, December 8, 2009 (UTC) * Kingcjc 16:46, December 8, 2009 (UTC) * 19:12, December 8, 2009 (UTC) * Maybe we shouldn't have 's comments in there as part of the policy though :D 23:01, December 8, 2009 (UTC) * [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 23:08, December 8, 2009 (UTC) * Maybe... :P I thought that was where you put in your support votes! :D -[[User:Nerfblasterpro|'Nerf']][[User talk:Nerfblasterpro|'blasterpro: ']] 16:39, December 9, 2009 (UTC) * 05:18, December 10, 2009 (UTC) ;Oppose ;Comments On point one, It can be a little hard to add information other than the content's ect of small supplementary sets such as the hundreds released in System i Leg Accessories, where these sets only contained a few pieces of one or two types.Gladiatoring 13:02, December 8, 2009 (UTC) : True, but even just having a sentence such as "The was a themed set released in . It contained pieces." is better than just having an infobox and nothing else, or just Name: , Pieces: , etc which some articles have had in the past 23:01, December 8, 2009 (UTC) * I agree in all points, but what can we do against point four? We can hardly warn somebody for editing his userpage too often... 19:12, December 8, 2009 (UTC) ** True, but we need to have something in place to stop users creating millions of subpages, and if userpage editing does get out of hand, at least we'll have a policy to refer to if we do need to give a warning 23:01, December 8, 2009 (UTC) }} Category:Stickied threads Category:Votes in progress